aging tankers to be replaced

"C Knowles" wrote in message
m...
You are falling apart... They call it an E-6 these days

The E-6 is based on the 707, not the -135.

Larger tankers? Oh, you mean the KC-10s. The AF doesn't have that many
as
they are REALLY, REALLY expensive. They are primarily used to transport
Fighters across the Oceans. Since most of the KC-10s are assigned to
the
AF
Reserves, those are not the ones near the War Zones. The KC-135, P-3
and
the KC-130 handle it closer to the action. The fact is, the P-3 and the
KC-130 operate almost right on the front lines while even the KC-135
operates further behind the lines. Due to financial reasons, it's
better
to
lose a P-3 Orian or a KC-130 over a KC-135. At least those two only
cost
a
few million where as the KC-135 cannot be replaced.

The KC-10 was a bargain at (about) $60 million apiece. Cheap compared to
the
767 which won't come close to the Ten's offload capability.
Fighter drags are the Ten's first mission but we do much more theater
refueling and even cargo hauling.
No KC-10s are assigned to the reserves. Both bases (McGuire & Travis) have
an associate reserve unit but I can assure you the active duty units "own"
the airplanes.

That is just one place. But I can only speak from over 10 years ago and
things change. But 10 years ago, the primary 10 was with the Reserves.


KC-130s generally operate in higher threat areas due to the nature of the
mission, not financial reasons. Howwever, plenty of KC-135s & KC-10s go in
harm's way when the mission calls for it.

No argument there. I remember a 135 dropping it's boom trying to get a
fighter home that was just pouring fuel with only one engine running. The
135 put the fighter within just a few 10s of feet from the runway before
forced disconnect. The fighter didn't make it but the attempt was heroic
considering just how much danger that place the Tanker in being so low to
the ground with the F-4 in tow.

I don't take a thing away from 135s and 10s. I retired from a KC-135R base
in 1990. But the fact still remains that if the KC-135s were used daily in
high threat areas, we would have losses that cannot be replaced. 60 mil is
an extremely high cost when a 6 mil tanker can be used in it's place. Just
get enough gas to get out of harms way until you can reach the real gas
station in the sky.


Curt
KC-10 flight engineer

"Daryl Hunt" wrote in message
...

You are completely falling apart on that one. The KC-135 predates the
Buff.
And it looks like they may outlive them if things keep going like they
are.

I don't think that's correct. The B-52B, the first operational model, was
delivered in 1955. The KC-135 didn't come out until 1957. The last B-52
model, the 'H', was delivered three years before the last KC-135 came off
the line.

I have been a KC-10 flight engineer since 1985 and am currently the AMC
command flight engineer.
Sorry, but the KC-10 fleet has always belonged to the active duty. From the
very beginning of the program each active duty wing had an associate reserve
wing along side it. They were originally at Barksdale, March and Seymour
Johnson. Each base had two active and one reserve flying squadron. In the
early-mid nineties all were moved to Travis and McGuire. Each base now has
two active and two (smaller) reserve squadrons. The reserves provide both
aircrews (about half as many as the active duty) and maintenance personnel.
Both the reserve and active wing patches are painted on the side of the
airplane, but the active duty wing commander owns the aircraft. There have
never been any stand-alone reserve units with KC-10s.

I have read occasional references (usually in photo captions) to airplanes
being "assigned" to the reserves but they are incorrect. In practice
however, it doesn't make a lot of difference. Mission taskings are handed
out based on personnel availability, training requirements and sometimes
qualifications for a particular mission. Based on the statement above,
reserve aircrews fly about one third of all KC-10 missions. We frequently
fly mixed aircrews from different units, plus active & reserve crews train &
deploy together.

CMSgt Curtiss Knowles


No KC-10s are assigned to the reserves. Both bases (McGuire & Travis)
have
an associate reserve unit but I can assure you the active duty units
"own"
the airplanes.

That is just one place. But I can only speak from over 10 years ago and
things change. But 10 years ago, the primary 10 was with the Reserves.

Just because the A/C had a 55-XXXX serial number doesn't mean it was built
in 1955. That was the year that aircraft block was funded, but was
undoubtedly built and delivered in 1957 or later.

"KenG" wrote in message
...
Bzzzzzzzzt Wrong!!!!! I have seen and flown on a '55 model. and have
heard of a '54 though I hadn't seen it.





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"KenG" wrote in message
...
Bzzzzzzzzt Wrong!!!!! I have seen and flown on a '55 model. and have
heard of a '54 though I hadn't seen it.

James Anatidae wrote:
"Daryl Hunt" wrote in message
...

You are completely falling apart on that one. The KC-135 predates the

Buff.

And it looks like they may outlive them if things keep going like they

are.

I don't think that's correct. The B-52B, the first operational model,
was
delivered in 1955. The KC-135 didn't come out until 1957. The last
B-52
model, the 'H', was delivered three years before the last KC-135 came
off
the line.




Serial numbers are issued on a contract basis. Construction then starts
after that. A 1955 tail number may not have been delivered until 1957-58.

I think you have stubbed your toe. You owe the man an apology. As an
example 05-0127 through 0135 serials have been issued for C-17As under
construction or yet to be started.

Tex Houston

"C Knowles" wrote in message ...

Point by point snippages

Where do you get this ****?

Why Curt, I do my best to keep my head out of my ass so I don't
confuse all points of view contrary to mine with "****". Thats all you
tend to see when in an HUA position.

Here are some facts Curt.
1. Tankers were over an active SAM environment in Iraq. It made the
news that some of the crews thought it was a risky move. You're in
the business; care to shed some light Curt? Were you there?
2. Much has been written about using the 767-200 and -400 to replace
the C-135 in various missions...Missions that will take them into
contested airspace on a more regular basis as their presence is
considered more and more essential. That means ops over a battlefield
Curt...Guess they will never get shot at though.

What AF doctrine even discusses this?
Some by the name of Jumper has been talking alot about this whole
smart tanker thing. I suppose he could be full of ****. Ever hear of
the guy Curt? http://www.afji.com/ISR/Mags/2002/Issue2/notebook.html

The idea that any large aircraft can routinely "absorb battle damage"
and still remain mission capable is ludicrous.

Wow Curt we agree!! So how far from removed form a battlefield can
GMTI be and still be effective Curt? Maybe such capabilities need to
be on a more survivable platform than a 767. Why must all those people
be aboard that same platform that is carrying the sensors anyway?

Any aircraft of the sort receiveing battle damage is going to RTB immediately.

And you put more of a warfighting role onto the tanker fleet they WILL
eventually be seen as a worthwhile target by an opponent. We can't
count on hashish besotted boobs with an "Inshallah" attitude to be our
adversaries forever Curt.

What you are suggesting, some sort of armored battle-tanker, would be
hugely expensive and there would be little return on investment,
because that capability would be almost never be used.

What I'm suggesting is that instead of considering replacing aging
tankers, its time to be replacing aging concepts.
More use of UAVs, Space, etc.
To be fair, last week's AVleak(I get a bunch of "****" from that
yellow rag Curt)had an article about the Navy's Hairy Buffalo and it
use as a UAV control system as well as its migration into C-130s; an
aircraft built to take some punishment at least.

The more crap a tanker has to carry means that much less fuel for
offload.

You really need to set that Jumper dude straight Curt. His plan of
palletizing comms, elint, ISR, an putting it on tankers is apparently
full of "****"

You've been watching too much 12 O'clock High.
Good movie...haven't seen the tv show in ages. Do you remember who
played Kowalski?

"C Knowles" wrote in message
news
I have been a KC-10 flight engineer since 1985 and am currently the AMC
command flight engineer.
Sorry, but the KC-10 fleet has always belonged to the active duty. From
the
very beginning of the program each active duty wing had an associate
reserve
wing along side it. They were originally at Barksdale, March and Seymour
Johnson. Each base had two active and one reserve flying squadron. In the
early-mid nineties all were moved to Travis and McGuire. Each base now has
two active and two (smaller) reserve squadrons. The reserves provide both
aircrews (about half as many as the active duty) and maintenance
personnel.
Both the reserve and active wing patches are painted on the side of the
airplane, but the active duty wing commander owns the aircraft. There have
never been any stand-alone reserve units with KC-10s.

I can only go by those that visited us. The crews I talked to were
Reserves. But that doesn't mean that will be though. I don't doubt what
you say but you can see how some of out in the rest of the world can come to
this conclusion whether it's correct or not or, like in this case, half
right.


I have read occasional references (usually in photo captions) to airplanes
being "assigned" to the reserves but they are incorrect. In practice
however, it doesn't make a lot of difference. Mission taskings are handed
out based on personnel availability, training requirements and sometimes
qualifications for a particular mission. Based on the statement above,
reserve aircrews fly about one third of all KC-10 missions. We frequently
fly mixed aircrews from different units, plus active & reserve crews train
&
deploy together.

CMSgt Curtiss Knowles

It's good history to impart.

What link?

"s.p.i." wrote in message
om...
"C Knowles" wrote in message
...
Where do you get this ****? Some offhand comment by a fighter pilot?

In case you ingore the link I posted check this out Curt...

General Jumper recently told ISR's monthly sister publication AFJI,
"No matter where we go to war, if it's the Navy or the Air Force, if
there are airplanes involved, what's always there are tankers.
Everybody relies on them; nobody can do business without them. ...We
tend to put them as close to the danger zone as we possibly can so
that the planes they're refueling have the shortest distance to go to
do their jobs. What if we put on those tankers a pallet of equipment
that could translate all of the links that have been invented by the
'stovepipes' for proprietary use in our weapons systems?"

"C Knowles" wrote in message y.com...
What link?

I got the quote from he

http://www.afji.com/ISR/Mags/2002/Issue2/notebook.html

It is silly to think tankers won't eventually be shot at as they take
on more warfighting roles and assuming they won't will ensure its
occurence. Related; do you really think the JSTARS and its follow on
variants can reasonably be operated outside areas ot taking fire?

The 767 is built for rapid turnaround operations at airports and
economic cruise characteristics. It's built as light as possible, and
because components and systems have been engineered for ease of
access, they are vulnerable to external damage. Those who are familiar
with the brick ****house engineering and sporty performance of the
C-135 need to understand the 76 isn't your Granddaddy's Boeing.
It doesn't posess the inherent survivablity factors of speed, low RCS,
or agility of TACAIR and its not overbuilt like the C-135 is.
Without some hardening of the airframe and systems the chances of
going RTB after taking damage is pretty low with that airplane.

If there is official debate about this, its likely(rightfully)
happening in closed circles given the existence of this link
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/1999aircraft/neigh.pdf

But there is alot of open source on the subject and from this link you
can see surviviability been a red-headed step child discipline for
some time:
http://www.dote.osd.mil/lfte/ACFTVULN.HTM

Here are a couple of more links:
http://www.aircraft-survivability.co...Textbooks.html
http://iac.dtic.mil/surviac/
http://www.nps.navy.mil/or/oacurric/....%20Thesis.htm
http://www.blazetech.com/Products___...uelshield.html

Well, you obviously have a very different read on this than I do. You have
made a huge leap from Gen Jumper's comments to the idea of tankers and other
HVAA fighting it out with SAMs and AAA over a hot area, conducting AR while
taking hits. I have no idea who you are or what your qualifications are. You
may remember who I am. I'm one of the guys orbiting in that tanker near the
bad guys. Seriously, not trying to flame you here but you just don't seem to
be that knowledgeable on these aircraft or air refueling in general.

Tanker, or any other HVAA, employment is determined by the threat vs. the
mission requirement to get in close to the battle. ORM, really. And in spite
of what you think, tankers have been going into harm's way since the Korean
War and none have been shot down. That's where the smart tanker concept came
from. The biggest threat to this type of aircraft is probably taking a
manpad on takeoff or landing. The technology to counter this threat is
relatively cheap and available, yet few tankers anywhere in the world have
it.

Now, the special ops mission requires going into the bad guys back yard.
That's why we have MC- and KC-130s.

I checked out your links and, aside from the smart tanker article, saw
nothing addressing tankers, and only several references to heavies period.
I will agree however that the fuel tank explosion suppression technology is
something that should be put on large aircraft regardless of type. Not just
for combat either, but to prevent a stray spark from ruining the day.

Think about this; you use Gen Jumper's comments to justify your thesis; this
is the same Gen Jumper who is asking Congress for 767 tankers. Oh, and 767s
for the MC2A as well. Are you just smarter than him? If you are correct why
isn't the military pursuing a battle-capable tanker? Maybe because it costs
way too much? The only way we can afford 100 767s, a fraction of the KC-135
fleet, is by leasing. And that will require pulling funds from other
programs. Guess the Navy missed the boat as well, basing the MMA on the 737,
another airliner.

Curt

"s.p.i." wrote in message
om...
"C Knowles" wrote in message
y.com...
What link?

I got the quote from he

http://www.afji.com/ISR/Mags/2002/Issue2/notebook.html

It is silly to think tankers won't eventually be shot at as they take
on more warfighting roles and assuming they won't will ensure its
occurence. Related; do you really think the JSTARS and its follow on
variants can reasonably be operated outside areas ot taking fire?

The 767 is built for rapid turnaround operations at airports and
economic cruise characteristics. It's built as light as possible, and
because components and systems have been engineered for ease of
access, they are vulnerable to external damage. Those who are familiar
with the brick ****house engineering and sporty performance of the
C-135 need to understand the 76 isn't your Granddaddy's Boeing.
It doesn't posess the inherent survivablity factors of speed, low RCS,
or agility of TACAIR and its not overbuilt like the C-135 is.
Without some hardening of the airframe and systems the chances of
going RTB after taking damage is pretty low with that airplane.

If there is official debate about this, its likely(rightfully)
happening in closed circles given the existence of this link
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/1999aircraft/neigh.pdf

But there is alot of open source on the subject and from this link you
can see surviviability been a red-headed step child discipline for
some time:
http://www.dote.osd.mil/lfte/ACFTVULN.HTM

Here are a couple of more links:
http://www.aircraft-survivability.co...Textbooks.html
http://iac.dtic.mil/surviac/
http://www.nps.navy.mil/or/oacurric/....%20Thesis.htm
http://www.blazetech.com/Products___...ield/fuelshiel
d.html